Talk:Christopher Poole

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Text from 4chan was copied or moved into Christopher Poole on June 24, 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:4chan.

Probably due to the antics of 4chan users, there seems to be inconsistent naming in the article. Half the time, Poole is referred to as "moot" and the other half the time as Poole. Someone might want to fix this up.

Beaver225 (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC) I agree, I also think that it should always be moot no every Moot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.116.196 (talk) 02:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Calling a guy by a screenname, or whatever he wants to call it, in an entry that is supposed to be encyclopedic is inappropriate. Moreover, calling him moot when referring to his testimony in federal court is just plain silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.155.6 (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I vote for naming him 'moot' as this is the name he is most known by in the business; you wouldn't name the 'Lady Gaga' page 'Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta.' These are both pseudonyms but both people are known quite more by the pseudonym, so it wouldn't be totally out of the question. --Kooperfan (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem with changing the page name is that moot is a disambiguation page, and Poole probably isn't the primary usage of the word. That page does give a link to here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "in the business"? As far as I know in his professional life (i.e. his various talks, Canv.as, DrawQuest) he's usually referred to as Christopher Poole. The only place he's referred to as moot is 4chan, which is more of a hobby for him than anything, and that one time he did an AMA on Reddit. 108.28.170.60 (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

That information is completely accurate. I cannot cite additional sources other than years and years of browsing 4chan. But yeah, they were just little kids back then. 93.163.53.191 (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

In moots own words, he claims himself to be of roman Catholic origin, although not religious at all.

I find this of interest to put in due to numerous claims of moot being Jewish in origin, whilst in fact, he is not.

The comment was quoted from a pinned up topic in the 4chan discussion section, from which moot posts frequently.

"Just on paper. I was baptized Roman Catholic but never received the Sacrament of Confirmation, and am not religious at all."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.1.93 (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That kind of information is appropriate to the page, but we need to be able to cite a source for it, and it's debatable whether a 4chan post would satisfy our sourcing requirements. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I think not. That looks like a 4chan post, and we have no way of verifying that whoever made the post was telling the truth or knew what they were talking about. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is a 4chan post, but it is without a doubt moot/Poole making the post because he's the only one who can appear as "moot ## Admin". Sure he could be lying, but it's not much different from an interview.137.238.117.242 (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yes, you are right – that was dumb of me. I've gone back and looked more carefully. At one point moot/Poole says: "I'm more amused that every time I point out I'm Catholic and not Jewish, people then respond with..." followed by stuff I'm not going to reproduce here. Later on, he says: "I was baptized Roman Catholic but never received the Sacrament of Confirmation, and am not religious at all." These are passing comments in a very long thread in which the main subject matter is people complaining about paying and sometimes making antisemitic comments. Given that moot/Poole himself makes it clear that religion isn't an important part of his life, I don't see much encyclopedic value in saying that he was baptized Roman Catholic but is not religious. If there is a secondary source, independent of 4chan, maybe a mainstream news source, that writes about people calling Poole Jewish, then we might have something that would not be WP:UNDUE, but otherwise, I don't see much point. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

moot mentioned again last night in his final Q&A, that he is not Jewish. Due a large amount of people claiming that moot is Jewish (much of the time for antisemitic purpose), this was one of the questions in his final Q&A session that he chose to answer. The Q&A is available as an 8 hour audio recording on YouTube under the title "moot's final 4chan Q&A" and you can find confirmation from him about this at 04:11:55. Because people keep bring it up (as moot says in the audio) and because he chose to address this in the final Q&A, is this not worthy of being documented on Wikipedia? if not only to debunk much of the antisemitic banter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.102.253.11 (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Calling bullshit on the final line of Impact and activity (referencing [19] and [20]). [20] in particular is clearly rubbish. Would delete it myself but the article's 'protected'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.46.55 (talk • contribs) 15:26, September 10, 2013‎

In the lede, shouldn't there be a very brief explanation in parentheses explaining what 4chan and Canvas are? Many editors may already know this, but at least a few readers would appreciate it if they didn't have to go look it up.__209.179.93.170 (talk) 00:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Both terms are blue-linked, so it is easy to click through to see what they are. I would worry that any explanation here would end up not being sufficiently brief. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

He's been in court and yet all the use is this obvious 4chan in-joke fake name. Really odd. I have looked and only found rumors as to his actual name. I'd think being in court he would use his actual name but I guess not. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 08:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you're getting at, but his real name is publicly known. It's the title of the article. His rarely updated personal blog has his first name in the title and gives his full name. StormyTheRabbit (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)